email_templates_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety traits such as idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: at least one updatable field must be supplied, and setting isDefault to true unsets the current default template in the same category.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only constraints and side effects that an agent needs in order to invoke the tool correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an update mutation with annotations covering safety and a fully described input schema, the description is mostly complete. It could say more about return behavior or error cases, but no output schema exists and the key mutation side effect is disclosed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds a useful cross-parameter constraint ('all fields are optional but at least one must be provided') and clarifies the side effect of isDefault beyond the schema's wording.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing email template.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations such as email_templates_create, email_templates_list, and email_templates_delete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'update an existing' and the at-least-one-field constraint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like create/delete/list or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.